SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) The facts of the case are that a lease deed dated 13.8.2014 was executed in favour of the petitioner and one of the clauses in the aforesaid deed provided that the period of lease prescribed in the aforesaid deed could be extended with the consent of the parties. Stamp duty was paid by the petitioner on the said lease deed dated 13.8.2014. However, Case No. D2015143600766 of 2015 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, District Jaunpur regarding the deficiency in payment of stamp duty in relation to the aforesaid lease deed dated 13.8.2014 and the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 22.2.2016 held that the said document was liable to be stamped treating the same as a sale deed in view of the clause in the deed which provided that the period of lease prescribed in the deed could be extended with the consent of the parties. The aforesaid proceedings were held ex-parte against the petitioner as the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner even though notices in the said case were served on it. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 56(1)A of the Act, 1899 (Revision No. C2016140000945 of 2016) challenging the order dated 22.2.2016 and the said revision was dismissed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, District Varanasi vide his order dated 21.5.2018. The orders dated 21.5.2018 and 22.2.2016 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have perused the records.;